A Conversation with an Atheist

Rick Wade

About Our Dialogue

The Conversation Begins

In the fall of 1999 I became involved in an e-mail conversation
with an atheist who wrote in response to a program I'd written
titled The Relevance of Christianity.
In this program [Ed. note: The transcripts for our radio programs become
the online articles such as the one you are reading.] I contrast
Christianity and naturalism on the matters of meaning,
morality, and hope.{1} She wrote to say that she was able to find
these things in her own philosophy of life without God. If such
things can be had without God, why bother bringing Him in,
especially given all the trouble religion causes?

Stephanie has an undergraduate degree in philosophy, and is pursuing her
doctorate in physics.{2} Our conversation has been quite cordial, and
in our over two-month long conversation I've grown to respect her.
She isn't just out to pick a fight. I try to keep in mind that, if
her ideas seem grating on me, mine are just as grating on her.

Stephanie seems genuinely baffled by theistic belief. If God is
there, He is outside the bounds of what we can know. While someone
like Kierkegaard saw good reason to take a "leap of faith" into
that which can't be proved, she sees no reason to do that. "I think
that if I had faith it would be like his," she says, "but the leap
seems, at this point, both futile and risky."

Stephanie has
three general objections to belief in God. First, she believes that
the evidence is insufficient. The evidence of nature is all she
has, and God is said to have attributes beyond the natural. There's
no way to know about such things. Second, she believes that
theistic belief adds nothing of importance to our lives or to what
we can know through science. I asked her, "What is it about
Christianity that turns you off to it?" And she replied, "I imagine
believing, and I am no more fulfilled and no less worried than I am
when I am not believing. God just does not seem to be a useful,
beneficial, or tenable idea." Third, she believes that religion is
morally bad for people. It grounds morality in fear, she believes,
and it produces a dogmatism in adherents that prompts such behavior
as killing abortion providers.

Stephanie began our
correspondence not to be given proofs for the existence of God, but
for me "to explain more personally His relevance." What is called
for, then, is defense and explication rather than persuasion.

Basic Elements of Stephanie's Atheism

There are three main elements underlying Stephanie's
atheism. The first is reason, which she believes is
sufficient for understanding our world, for morality, and for
understanding and cultivating human qualities such as "aesthetic
appreciation, compassion, and love." It is, of course, the final
authority on religion as well. Reason does not admit faith. Insofar
as one has admitted faith into the equation, one has moved toward
irrationalism. As George Smith wrote, "I will not accept the
existence of God, or any doctrine, on faith because I reject faith
as a valid cognitive procedure. . . . If theistic doctrines must be
accepted on faith, theism is necessarily excluded."{3}

The
second element, nature, is reason's best source for
information. Stephanie says, "I have no access to anything outside
of the natural universe and my own mind."

The package is
complete with Stephanie's commitment to science, which is
the tool reason uses to understand nature. It alone is capable of
giving us "objective, investigable knowledge," she says. In fact,
I think it is fair to label Stephanie's approach to knowledge
"scientistic." There seems to be no area of life which need not be
submitted to science to be considered rational, and for which
scientific investigation isn't sufficient.

The
reason/nature/science triumvirate provides the structure for
acquiring knowledge. To go beyond it is to move into irrationalism,
Stephanie believes. There's certainly no reason to add God. She
says, "As I understand it, the idea of God as a creator or
guarantor adds nothing but unjustified mysticism to my
knowledge."{4}

Theists have no problem with using reason to
understand our world, or with the study of nature, or with using
the tools of science. The problem comes when Stephanie concludes
that nothing can be known beyond nature analyzed scientifically.
She believes that nature is all that is there or at least all that
is knowable. Stephanie says she doesn't consciously start with
naturalism; she has no desire to "champion naturalism as a dogma,"
she says. However, since science "only permits investigation of
natural, repeatable phenomena," and she is satisfied with that, her
view is restricted to the scope of nature. She even goes so far as
to say, "I equate rationality and naturalism."

It seems,
then, that the deck is stacked from the beginning. Stephanie's
emphasis on science doesn't necessarily prevent her from finding
God, but her naturalism does.

Insufficient Evidences

The Evidentialist Objection

Let's look at Stephanie's three basic objections to theistic
belief, beginning with the charge that there is insufficient
evidence to believe. Rather than offer a defense for theistic
belief, let's look at the objection itself.

Stephanie's
argument is called the "evidentialist objection." She quotes W. K.
Clifford, a 19th century scholar who wrote, "It is wrong
always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence."{5} Stephanie's objection is that there isn't
enough evidence to believe in God. The first question, of course,
is what constitutes good evidence. Another question is whether we
should accept Clifford's maxim in the first place.

Some
atheists believe they don't bear the same burden of adducing
evidences for their beliefs as theists do. They say atheism is the
"default" position. To believe in God is to add
a belief; to not add that belief is to remain in atheism or
perhaps agnosticism.{6} But atheism isn't a "zero belief" system.
Western atheism is typically naturalistic. Atheists hold definite
views about the nature of the universe; there's no reason to think
that atheism is where we all automatically begin in our thinking,
such that to move to theism is to add a belief while to not
believe in God is to remain in atheism. It's hard not to agree with
Alvin Plantinga that the presumption of atheism "looks like a piece
of merely arbitrary intellectual imperialism."{7} If theists have to
give evidences, so do atheists.

Stephanie, however, doesn't
defend her atheism or naturalism this way. She believes that reason
using the tools of science is the only reliable means of attaining
knowledge. The result of her observations, she says, is
naturalism. There simply aren't sufficient evidences for believing
in God, at least the kinds of evidences that are trustworthy. Which
kind are trustworthy? Stephanie wants evidences in nature, because
in nature one finds "objective, investigable knowledge."
However, she doesn't believe evidences for God can be found
there. God must be outside of nature if He exists. She said, "You
may rightly ask what kind of naturalistic evidence I would ever
accept for God, and I would have to answer, ‘none.' Because once a
naturalistic investigation turns to God with its hands up, it
ceases to be naturalistic, and so it ceases to refer to anything
that I can hope to investigate. I lack a sense for God and I have
no access to anything outside of the natural universe and my own
mind." She said in a later letter that the cause of the
universe may have had an agent. But when we begin adding other
attributes to this agent, attributes which can't be studied
scientifically, we get into trouble. "As soon as you talk about God
as having infinite attributes, those attributes actually begin to
lose meaning," she says. "My view," she says, "is that it's just as
well to call the unknown cause what it is--an
unknown cause--until
the means to investigate it are developed." And by this she means
natural means.

A Naturalistic Twist

The first problem here is obvious: Stephanie has biased the
argument in her favor by her restrictions on knowledge to the realm
of nature. She reduces our resources for knowledge to the
scientifically verifiable. Such reductionism is arbitrary. By
reducing all knowledge to that which can be discovered
scientifically, Stephanie has cut out significant portions of our
knowledge. Philosopher Huston Smith said this: "It is as if the
scientist were inside a large plastic balloon; he can shine his
torch anywhere on the balloon's interior but cannot climb outside
the balloon to view it as a whole, see where it is situated, or
determine why it was fabricated."{8} Science can't tell us what the
final cause (or purpose or goal) of a thing is; in fact it can't
tell whether there are ultimate purposes. It cannot
determine ultimate or existential meaning. While it can describe
the artist's paintbrush and pigments and canvas, it can't measure
beauty.

Clifford's Folly

Beyond this difficulty is the fact that Clifford's maxim
itself has problems.

First, the evidentialist
approach is unreasonably restrictive. If we have to be able
construct an argument for everything we believe¾and upon which we
act--we will believe little and act little.

Second, this
approach might have validity in science, but it leaves out other
significant kinds of beliefs. Kelly Clark lists perceptual beliefs,
memory beliefs, belief in other minds, and truths of logic as other
kinds of "properly basic" beliefs that we hold without inferring
them from other beliefs.{9} Beliefs involved in personal relationships
are another example. Relationships often require a willingness to
believe in a friend apart from sufficient evidences. In fact, the
willingness to do so can have a positive effect on developing a
good relationship. Beliefs about persons are still another
example. I accept without proof that my wife is a person, that she
isn't an automaton, that she has intrinsic value, etc. These kinds
of beliefs don't require amassing evidences to formulate an
inductive or deductive proof. Clifford's maxim works well in
scientific study, but not for beliefs about persons.

More to
the point, religious beliefs don't fit so neatly within
evidentialist restrictions. They are more like relational beliefs
since, in confronting a Supreme Being, one is not confronting a
hypothesis but a Person.

Fourth, Stephanie's use of
Clifford's evidentialism is biased in her favor because, as we
discussed above, her satisfaction with the deliverances of
scientific investigation means she will only accept evidences in
the natural order.

Do We Have Good Reasons for Believing?

Some Christian scholars are saying that we don't have
to have evidences for belief, meaning that we don't have to be able
to put together an argument whereby God's existence is inferred
from other beliefs. Our direct experience of God is sufficient for
rational belief (using "experience" in a broader sense than
emotional experience).{10} Belief in God is therefore properly
basic.

This is not to say there are no grounds
for believing, however. Drawing from John Calvin, Alvin Plantinga
says that we have an ingrained tendency to recognize God under
appropriate circumstances. Of course, there are a number of
reasons or grounds for believing. These include direct experience
of God, the testimony of a people who claim to have known God,
written revelation which makes sense (if one is open to the
supernatural), philosophical and scientific corroboration, the
historical reality of a man named Jesus who fulfilled prophecies
and did miracles, etc. Am I reversing myself here? Do we need
reasons or not? The point is this: while there are valid reasons
for believing in God, what we do not need to do is submit
our belief in God ultimately to Clifford's maxim, especially a
version of it already committed to naturalism. We can recognize God
in our experience, and this belief can be confirmed by various
reasons or evidences. Rather than view our belief as guilty until
proven innocent, as the evidentialist objection would have it, we
can view it as innocent until proven guilty. Let the atheists prove
we're wrong.

Theism Adds Nothing

The second general objection to belief in God Stephanie
offers is that it adds nothing of value to life and to what we can
know by reason alone. Is this true?
Meaning

Consider the subject of meaning. Stephanie said she
finds meaning in the everyday affairs of life without worrying
about God. Let me quote an extended passage from Stephanie's first
letter on the subject of meaning. Her reference in the first line
is to a quotation from a book by Albert Camus.

Your quote from The Stranger ("I laid my heart open to
the benign indifference of the universe") expresses well a feeling
that I have had often. The universe is not concerned with me, so I
do not need to bow and cater to anything in it; I can merely be
grateful (yes, actually grateful to nothing in particular) that I
can walk along a path with trees and breathe in the crisp late
autumn, that I can watch cotton motes fly into my face, facing the
sun, that I can struggle and wrangle my way into knowing that
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that which keeps atoms from
collapsing (in nanoseconds!!). I find meaning in my relationship
with my parents, brothers, and in my marriage; my husband is the
most kind, capable, ethical, and wise person I've ever met. These
things are sufficiently meaningful for me; I do not think that true
meaning is necessarily eternal and I do not demand recognition from
the universe or the human notion of its maker. I am convinced that
belief in a personal god could do nothing but dilute these things
by subordinating them to something as slippery as God.

Thus, Stephanie believes that God isn't necessary for her to
find meaning in life.

I replied that her naturalism provides
no meaning beyond what we impose on the universe. We can
pretend there is purpose behind it all, but a universe that
doesn't care about us doesn't care about our superimposed meanings
either. What does she do when the meaning she has given the
universe doesn't find support in the universe itself? I wrote:

You might see this earth as a beautiful 'mother' of sorts which
nourishes and sustains its inhabitants. Do people who suffer
through hurricanes or earthquakes or tornadoes see it as such? Do
people who live in almost lifeless deserts who have to spend their
days walking many miles to get water and who struggle to eke out a
meager existence from the land find beauty and meaning in it? Often
people who live close to the land do indeed find a special meaning
in nature itself, but by and large they also believe there is a
higher power behind it who not only gives meaning to the universe
but who gives meaning to the struggle to survive and to the effort
to preserve nature.

When I said that all her efforts at accomplishing some good
could come to naught, and thus be ultimately meaningless, her
response was, "That's OK. . . . I'm not looking for universal or
eternal meaning."

It's hard to know what to say to that. We
might follow Francis Schaeffer's advice and "take the roof off;"{11} in
other words, expose the implications of her beliefs. Stephanie says
she isn't a nihilist (one who believes that everything is
thoroughly meaningless and without value); perhaps she could be
called an "optimistic humanist" to use J. P. Moreland's term.{12} She
believes there are no ultimate values; rather, we give life
whatever meaning we choose. However, this position has no rational
edge on nihilism. It simply reflects a decision to act as if
there is meaning. Such groundless optimism is no more rationally
justifiable than nihilism. It is just intellectual make-believe
designed to help us be content with our lot¾adult versions of
children's fairy tales.

Since the loss of absolute or
transcendent meaning undercuts all absolute value, each person must
choose his or her own values, moral and otherwise. As I told
Stephanie, others might not agree with her values. The Nazis
thought there was valid meaning in purifying the race. What did the
Jews think?

What can be seen as meaningful for the
moment is just that--meaningful
for the moment. Death comes
and everything that has gone before it comes to nothing, at least
for the individual. Sure, one can find meaning in, say, working to
discover a cure for a terrible disease knowing that it will benefit
countless people for ages to come. But those people who benefit
from it will die one day, too. And in the end, if atheists are
correct, the whole race will die out and all that it has
accomplished will come to naught.{13} Thus, while there may be
temporal significance to what we do, there is no
ultimate significance. Can the atheist really live with
this?

By contrast, the eternal nature of God gives meaning
beyond the temporal. What we do has eternal significance because it
is done in the context of the creation of the eternal God who acts
with purpose and does nothing capriciously. More specifically,
belief in God locates our actions in the context of the building of
His kingdom. There is a specific end toward which we are working
that gives meaning to the specific things we do.

Strictly
speaking, then, we might agree with Stephanie that it's true God
doesn't add anything. Rather, He is the very ground
of meaning.

Morality

What about morality? Although Stephanie says that
naturalistic morality is superior, when pressed to offer a standard
she was only able to offer a basic impulse to kindness. In
addition, she said, "I think that it is sufficient to have an
internal sense of the golden rule, and I think that's a natural
development." She used the metaphor of a child growing up to
illustrate our growth in morality. Reason is all that is needed for
good moral behavior. If biblical moral principles agree with reason
they are unnecessary. If they don't, "they are absurd."

In response I noted that we can measure the growth of a child by
looking at an adult; the adult we might call the telos or
goal of the child. We know what the child is supposed to become.
What is the goal or end, in her view, of morality? What is the
standard of goodness to which we should attain? Stephanie accepts
the golden rule but can give me no reason why I should.
Reason by itself doesn't direct me to. The golden rule assumes a
basic equality between us all. Where does this idea come
from? Even if it is employed only to safeguard the survival of the
race, by what standard shall we say that's a good thing?
Maybe we need to get out of the way for something else.

God, however, provides a standard grounded in His character and
will to which we all are subject. He doesn't change on fundamental
issues (although God has pressed certain moral demands on His
people more at one time than another in keeping with the progress
of revelation{14}), and His law is suited to our nature and our needs.
The universe doesn't necessarily stand behind Stephanie's chosen
morality, but God--and the universe¾stand behind His.

One
final note. Showing the weaknesses of naturalism with respect to
morality is not to say that all atheists are evil people. In
her first letter, Stephanie wrote, "I take offense at your
statement that the relativism of a godless morality permits things
like ‘the destruction of the weak and the development of a master
race.' . . . I find this charge of atheist amorality from
Christians to be horribly persistent and unfair." I noted that I
never said in the Relevance radio program that all atheists
are immoral or amoral. What I said was that "atheism itself makes
no provision for fixed moral standards." I asked Stephanie to show
me what kind of moral standard naturalism offers. In fact, it
offers none. As I noted earlier, Stephanie doesn't want to
"champion naturalism." She knows it has nothing to offer. In fact,
in one of her latest posts, she admitted that her philosophy only
leaves her with "a frail pragmatism" and even "a certain moral
relativism" because she doesn't have "the absolute word of God to
fall back upon." She only has her own moral standards that have no
hold on anyone else. Until she can show me what universal standard
naturalism offers, I'll stand behind what I said about what
naturalism allows.

Hope

Let's turn our attention now to hope. Stephanie says
that when she dies she will cease to exist. She thus has to be
satisfied with the here and now. If there is nothing else,
one must make do. Stephanie said, "I am satisfied with the time
that I have here and now to think and feel and explore. You say,
'an impersonal universe offers no rewards,' but I am simply unable
to comprehend the appeal of the vagaries of the Christian Heaven,
especially with the heavy toll that they seem to of necessity take
on intellectual honesty. If your notion of true hope requires a
belief that one is promised eternal glory and fulfillment, then I
cannot claim it. I am unable to comprehend what that could mean."
Maybe the reason she is unable to comprehend it is her scientistic
approach. Heaven isn't something one can analyze scientifically.

P>In response I noted that she stands apart from the majority
of people worldwide. There is something in us that yearns for
immortality, I said. Of course, the various religions of the world
have different ways of defining what the eternal state is and how
to attain it. Christians believe we were created to desire it; it
is a part of our make-up because we were created by an immortal God
to live forever. If naturalism is true, I asked, how do you explain
the desire for immortality?

If we had no good reason to
believe in "the vagaries of the Christian Heaven," I suppose it
would be foolish to allow it to govern one's life. However, we
do have good reasons: the promise of God who doesn't lie,
and the resurrection of Jesus. We also have the witness of
"eternity set in our hearts." (Eccles. 3:11) Because of this
hope--which isn't a "cross your fingers" kind of hope, but is
justified confidence in the future--our labors here for Christ's
kingdom will not die with us, but will have eternal significance.
They are what is called "fruit that remains" (John 15:16), or the
work which is "revealed with fire." (1 Cor. 3:13-14)

Science

We're still thinking about what belief in God adds to our
lives and our knowledge. One area in which even some theists don't
want to bring God is science itself. Does theistic belief add
anything to science, or is its admission a source of trouble?

Much ink has been spilled over this question. Aside from
naturalistic evolutionists, some theistic scientists believe that
to go beyond what is called "methodological naturalism" is risky.{15}
That's the belief that, for the purposes of scientific
investigation, the scientist should not fall back on God as an
explanation, but should stay within the bounds of that which
science can investigate. However, not everyone is of this opinion.
As scholars active in the intelligent design movement are showing
today, it isn't necessarily so that the supernatural has no place
in science.

William Dembski, a leader in the intelligent
design movement, says that, far from harming scientific inquiry,
design adds to scientific discovery. For one thing, it
fosters inquiry where a naturalistic view might see no need.
Dembski names the issues of "junk DNA" and vestigial organs as
examples. Is this DNA really "junk"? Did these vestigial organs
have a purpose or do they have a purpose still? Openness to design
also raises a new set of research questions. He says, "We will want
to know how it was produced, to what extent the design is optimal,
and what is its purpose." Finally, Dembski says, "An object that is
designed functions within certain constraints." So, for example,
"If humans are in fact designed, then we can expect psychosocial
constraints to be hardwired into us. Transgress those constraints,
and we as well as our society will suffer."{16}

In sum it simply
isn't true that belief in God adds nothing of value to our lives
and our knowledge. After all, whereas Stephanie is restricted to
explanations arising from the natural order, we have the
supernatural order in addition.

Moral Problems with Theism

It Doesn't Live up to Its Promises

A third general objection Stephanie has to theistic belief
has to do with moral issues. Atheists say there are moral factors
that count against believing in God. To show a contradiction
between what the Bible teaches about God's character and what He
actually does is to show either that He really doesn't exist or
that He isn't worthy of our trust.

One argument says that
the Bible doesn't live up to its promises. Stephanie pointed to the
matter of unanswered prayer. She referred to a man who claimed to
have been an evangelical who lost his faith primarily because of
"the inefficacy of prayer." She has concluded that "hoping at God
gives you the same ‘results' that hoping at the indifferent
universe does--none that are consistent enough to be useful!"

In response, I noted first that people often put God to the test
as if He is the one who has to prove Himself. Do we have the right
to expect Him to answer our prayers 1) just because we pray them,
or 2) when we haven't done what He has called us to do? People
can't live the way they want to and then expect God to
1jump when they pray. Second, God has promised His people
that He will hear them and answer, but He doesn't always answer
prayers the way we expect or when we expect. Answers might be a
long time coming, or they might come in totally unexpected ways. Or
it might be that over time our understanding of the situation or of
God's desires changes so that we realize that we need to pray
differently.

Evil

The problem of evil is a significant moral issue in the
atheist's arsenal. We talk about a God of goodness, but what we see
around us is suffering, and a lot of it apparently unjustifiable.
Stephanie said, "Disbelief in a personal, loving God as an
explanation of the way the world works is reasonable--especially
when one considers natural disasters that can't be blamed on free
will and sin."{17}

One response to the problem of evil is that
God sees our freedom to choose as a higher value than protecting
people from harm; this is the freewill defense. Stephanie said,
however, that natural disasters can't be blamed on free will and
sin. What about this? Is it true that natural disasters can't be
blamed on sin? I replied that they did come into existence
because of sin (Genesis 3). We're told in Romans 8 that creation
will one day "be set free from its slavery to corruption," that it
"groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."
The Fall caused the problem, and, in the consummation of the ages,
the problem will be fixed.

Second, I noted that on a
naturalistic basis, it's hard to even know what evil is. But
the reality of God explains it. As theologian Henri Blocher said,

The sense of evil requires the God of the Bible. In a novel by
Joseph Heller, "While rejecting belief in God, the characters in
the story find themselves compelled to postulate his existence in
order to have an adequate object for their moral indignation." . .
. When you raise this standard objection against God, to whom do
you say it, other than this God? Without this God who is
sovereign and good, what is the rationale of our complaints? Can we
even tell what is evil? Perhaps the late John Lennon understood:
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain," he sang. Might we
be coming to the point where the sense of evil is a proof of the
existence of God?{18}

So, while it's true that no one (in my opinion) has really
nailed down an answer to the problem of evil, if there is no God,
there really is no problem of evil. Does the atheist ever find
herself shaking her fist at the sky after some catastrophe and
demanding an explanation? If there is no God, no one is listening.

Biblical Morality

Moral Character of God

Another direction atheistic objections run with respect to
moral issues is in regard to the character of God. Is He good like
the Bible says?

The "Old Testament God" is a favorite
target of atheists for His supposed mean spirited and angry
behavior, including stoning people for picking up sticks on Sunday,
and having prophets call down bears on children.{19} The story of
Abraham and Isaac is Stephanie's favorite biblical enigma. She
asked if I would take a knife to my son's throat if God told me to.
Clearly such a God isn't worthy of being called good.

Let's
look more closely at the story of Abraham. Remember
first of all that God did not let Abraham kill Isaac. The text says
clearly that this was a test; God knew that He was going to stop
Abraham.

But why such a difficult test? Consider Abraham's
cultural background. As one scholar noted, "It must be ever
remembered that God accommodates His instructions to the moral and
spiritual standards of the people at any given time."{20} In Abraham's
day, people offered their children as sacrifices to their gods.
While the idea of losing his promised son must have shaken him
deeply, the idea of sacrificing him wouldn't have been as
unthinkable to him as to us. Think of an equivalent today,
something God might call us to do that would stretch us almost to
the breaking point. Whatever we think of might not have been an
adequate test for Abraham. God needed to go to the extreme with
Abraham and command him to do something very difficult that wasn't
beyond his imagination given his cultural setting.

Next,
notice that Abraham said to the men with him "we will
worship and return to you." (Gen. 22:5) The book of Hebrews
explains that "He considered that God is able to raise people even
from the dead, from which he also received [Isaac] back as a type"
(11:17-19). Abraham believed what God had told him about building
a great nation through Isaac. So, if Isaac died by God's command,
God would raise him from the dead.

Stephanie also objected
to stories that told how God commanded the complete destruction of
a town by the Israelites. The only way to understand this is to put
it in the context of the nature of God and His opinion of sin, and
the character of the people in question. God is absolutely holy,
and He is a God of justice as well as mercy. To be true to His
nature, He must deal with sin. Read too about the people He had the
Israelites destroy. They were evil people. God drove them out
because of their wickedness (Deut. 9:5). Walter Kaiser explains why
the Canaanites were dealt with so severely.

They were cut off to prevent Israel and the rest of the world
from being corrupted (Deut. 20:16-18). When a people starts to burn
their children in honor of their gods (Lev. 18:21), practice
sodomy, bestiality, and all sorts of loathsome vices (Lev.
18:23,24; 20:3), the land itself begins to "vomit" them out as the
body heaves under the load of internal poisons (Lev. 18:25, 27-30).
. . . [William Benton] Greene likens this action on God's part, not
to doing evil that good may come, but doing good in spite of
certain evil consequences, just as a surgeon does not refrain from
amputating a gangrenous limb even though in so doing he cannot help
cutting off much healthy flesh.{21}

Kaiser goes on to note that when nations repent, God withholds
judgment (Jer. 18:7,8). "Thus, Canaan had, as it were, a final
forty-year countdown as they heard of the events in Egypt, at the
crossing of the Red Sea, and what happened to the kings who opposed
Israel along the way." They knew about the Israelites (Josh.
2:10-14). "Thus God waited for the 'cup of iniquity' to fill
up--and
fill up it did without any signs of change in spite of the
marvelous signs given so that the nations, along with Pharaoh and
the Egyptians, 'might know that He was the Lord.'"{22}

One more
point. Stephanie seemed to think that God still does things today
as He did in Old Testament times. When I told her that God does not
require all the same things of us today that He required of the
Israelites, she said that "the advantage of the absoluteness of the
biblical morality you wish to trumpet is negated by your softening
of OT law and by your making local and relative the very
commandments of God." In other words, we say there are absolutes,
but we give ourselves a way out. I simply noted that where it was
commanded by God, for example, to put a rebellious son to death, we
do not soften that command at all. But when in God's own economy He
brings about change, we go with the new way. God doesn't change,
but His requirements for His people have changed at times. This
doesn't leave everything open, however. The question is, What has
God called us to do today?

Its Harmful Effects on Us

For Stephanie, biblical instruction on morality not only
reveals a God she can't trust, it also is harmful for us, too. So,
for example, she says, "The desire not to harm can be overcome by
the desire to do right by [one's] idea of God (look at Abraham, my
favorite enigma). That's where the real harm to society can creep
in." She believes that the certainty of religious dogmatism
regarding it own rightness encourages "excesses," such as "holy
wars and terrorism for possession of the holy land, and the killing
of doctors and homosexuals for their own good." She said that
Christianity permits the kind of horrors we accuse atheists of
perpetrating but with the endorsement of God. "Hitler was a very
devout Catholic, as I understand it," she said.

There is
serious confusion here. Loaded words like "terrorism" bias the
issue unfairly, and Stephanie takes some "excesses" to be rooted in
Scripture when in fact they have nothing to do with biblical
morality. It is unfair of her and other atheists to ignore the
commands of Scripture that clearly reflect God's goodness while
ignoring sound interpretive methods for understanding the harder
parts. It's also wrong to let religious fanaticism in general count
against God. Just as some atheists aren't going to live up to
Stephanie's high standards, some Christians don't live up to God's.
Gene Edward Veith says that, while Hitler had a "perverse
admiration for Catholicism," he "hated Christianity."{23} What is clear
is that there is no biblical basis for Hitler's atrocities. To
return to the point I tried to make earlier, if he looked, Hitler
could have found moral injunctions in Christianity to oppose
his actions. Naturalists, on the other hand, have no such standard
by which to measure anyone's actions.

Conclusion

We have attempted to respond to Stephanie's three main
objections to believing in God: there's not enough evidence; it
adds nothing to what we can know from science; and theism is bad
for people. These are stock objections atheists present. I think
they have good answers. The next step is to try to take the atheist
to the place where she or he can "see" God. Removing the reasons
for rejecting God is one step in the process. The next step is to
show her God. I can think of no better way to do that than to take
her to Jesus, who "is the radiance of His glory and the exact
representation of His nature" (Heb. 1:3). I recommended that
Stephanie read one of more of the Gospels, and she said she would
read John. This is the point of apologetics, to take people to the
Lord in the presence of whom they must make a choice. Now we'll
wait to see what happens.